What "insurrection?" ?!

[Cepstrum]

Most of the movie titles made sense. But not Insurrection.

what gives?

Who was insurrecting? All that happened was a Starfleet Admiral who was behaving unethically, and then Picard & friends disobeyed him — ie, they were insubordinate. That's it. They weren't even treasonous.

So who was trying to overthrow the UFP government? Or how'd it end up with such an inaccurate/misleading name?

Did Star Trek: Insubordination sound too boring? Why the deceit? There was *no* insurrection.

Ok, it's kind of a dumb question. But it's bothered me for quite a while. Yeah, I'm pretty weird.

 

[Mr Silver]

Actually its heavily hinted that quite a few of Starfleet's top brass are behind Admiral Dougherty and the Son'a

Thus Picard and Co going against direct orders of some of the most influential officers in Starfleet, can be considered an Insurrection

 

[superstring01]

Most of the movie titles made sense. But not Insurrection.

what gives?

Who was insurrecting? All that happened was a Starfleet Admiral who was behaving unethically, and then Picard & friends disobeyed him — ie, they were insubordinate. That's it. They weren't even treasonous.

So who was trying to overthrow the UFP government? Or how'd it end up with such an inaccurate/misleading name?

Did Star Trek: Insubordination sound too boring? Why the deceit? There was *no* insurrection.

Ok, it's kind of a dumb question. But it's bothered me for quite a while. Yeah, I'm pretty weird.

Well, it was the second worst of all the Trek movies, did you really expect much from the title?

~String

 

[JediKnightButler]

Actually its heavily hinted that quite a few of Starfleet's top brass are behind Admiral Dougherty and the Son'a

Thus Picard and Co going against direct orders of some of the most influenctial officers in Starfleet, can be considered an Insurrection

True- but once they got to the Federation Council, apparently everything was magically settled. The title would've been a lot more appropo IMHO if Picard and company had actually had to go "on the run" from the Federation itself (or subversive elements therein). It would seem that pretty much the most "rogue" a Starfleet crew has gone in the movies is in TSFS and somewhat in TUC. For a movie entitled "Insurrection," we get a story about the crew being out in the middle of nowhere really only rebelling against a single Starfleet Admiral who, when he learned the full story about the Son'a and the Baku, turned on his counterpart (and met his demise). It would seem that, although the Federation was supporting the Son'a on this particular project, it's unclear whether or not they knew the full extent of the Son'a's plans, background, history with the Baku, etc. before agreeing to the plans to try to harvest particles from the Baku homeworld and even then it's entirely possible that Dougherty- intentionally or uintentionally- might have misrepresented what he and his Son'a counterparts were actually trying to do or what the effects would be on the Baku homeworld. Isn't it basically understood that even Dougherty didn't know about the "blood feud" between the Baku and Son'a until Picard figures it out and tells him about it?
If the Federation Council was supportive of the Federation-Son'a project, it was hardly supportive enough of it to sanction Picard and his crew for going against Dougherty's orders and sabotaging it in the end.

 

[Cepstrum]

Actually its heavily hinted that quite a few of Starfleet's top brass are behind Admiral Dougherty and the Son'a

Thus Picard and Co going against direct orders of some of the most influenctial officers in Starfleet, can be considered an Insurrection

True- but once they got to the Federation Council, apparently everything was magically settled. The title would've been a lot more appropo IMHO if Picard and company had actually had to go "on the run" from the Federation itself (or subversive elements therein). It would seem that pretty much the most "rogue" a Starfleet crew has gone in the movies is in TSFS and somewhat in TUC. For a movie entitled "Insurrection," we get a story about the crew being out in the middle of nowhere really only rebelling against a single Starfleet Admiral who, when he learned the full story about the Son'a and the Baku, turned on his counterpart (and met his demise). It would seem that, although the Federation was supporting the Son'a on this particular project, it's unclear whether or not they knew the full extent of the Son'a's plans, background, history with the Baku, etc. before agreeing to the plans to try to harvest particles from the Baku homeworld and even then it's entirely possible that Dougherty- intentionally or uintentionally- might have misrepresented what he and his Son'a counterparts were actually trying to do or what the effects would be on the Baku homeworld. Isn't it basically understood that even Dougherty didn't know about the "blood feud" between the Baku and Son'a until Picard figures it out and tells him about it?
If the Federation Council was supportive of the Federation-Son'a project, it was hardly supportive enough of it to sanction Picard and his crew for going against Dougherty's orders and sabotaging it in the end.

I agree. Picard et al. were rebelling (as far as they knew) against a specific order from a single superior officer. They had no intention of overthrowing anything. Neither did the Son'a, or even the bad admiral (and his friends in Starfleet brass, if he had any). It was merely a case of an admiral or admirals behaving somewhat unethically and Picard calling them out and taking reasonable action to stop them.

In Nemesis, it was made clear Picard was in the right. Janeway's dialog initially said that he got all the easy assignments: the Borg, the Romulans, the Son'a. I don't recall if that line got cut from the movie. But it's still implied that Picard was not penalized but commended — he retained his command of the E-E.

Insurrection implies an overthrow of the government. *Not* refusing to follow orders. In fact, the excuse of "following orders" was shown to be invalid at the Nuremburg Trials. If a Nazi officer refused a superior's order to commit a war crime and tried to prevent it, he wouldn't be accused by his superior of staging an insurrection but rather guilty of disobedience/insubordination. And after the war, he would be praised (ie, if he hadn't been executed for not following orders.)



I am not a fan of the Trek movies — I prefer the TV series. But I actually liked Insurrection better than Nemesis and even the acclaimed First Contact, because it felt more like a TV episode.

But still: why use a completely inaccurate name that has nothing to do with the events in the movie? Either use an appropriate name or have an *actual* insurrection. They could have done so by bringing the alien parasites back, having them take over the UFP, and forcing Picard to lead an actual insurrection to overthrow the alien-controlled government.


Really, the closest thing we got to an insurrection, IIRC, was in DS9 when Admiral Leyton tried to get Starfleet (with him at the top) to overthrow the civilian government. That was close to a true insurrection.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

This is more proof that Star Trek needs to stay away from depicting internal Federation politics. Star Trek is not about the Federation but about the frontier of the Federation - patrolling the outlying colonizes, defending it from interlopers, exploring beyond its borders.

The Federation is just a big, black hole at the heart of the story, which we don't need to concern ourselves about, because it doesn't need help, being enlightened, peaceful, with infinite resources. Starfleet's job is to protect this paradise from the big, bad cosmos.

Star Trek is essentially a Western. For it to be set inside the Federation is like a Western to be set in 19th C New York City. Yuck. Doesn't work.

They could have done so by bringing the alien parasites back, having them take over the UFP, and forcing Picard to lead an actual insurrection to overthrow the alien-controlled government.

Now that's the right idea, because the threat is external rather than anything caused by the Federation itself. Another angle is what DS9 did in Homefront/Paradise Lost, to depict the Federation being vulnerable to outside subversion because as nice as it may be, it's not 100% perfect. Which simply underscores the need for Starfleet to keep threats like parasites and changelings at bay.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Dotted inside the federation are many prewarp worlds, which according to a novel I read, which only makes sense, a number of worlds (the book said 50) are put aside for that worlds eventual need for colonization and expansion. So there's plenty of Frontier still alive and kicking right inside the Federation as they build empire around dinky little child races inventing fire and printing presses.

Remember the Get Smart where the Indians tried to take back their country? I think watching a first nation plot to overthrow 19th century new York would have been bloody interesting. Would they have gone for terrorism, systematic extermination or some sort of siege? You've seen the Gangs of New York, by no means where these New Yorkers anything close to Civilized yet.

 

[SPCTRE]

Most of the movie titles made sense. But not Insurrection.

what gives?

Who was insurrecting? All that happened was a Starfleet Admiral who was behaving unethically, and then Picard & friends disobeyed him — ie, they were insubordinate. That's it. They weren't even treasonous.

So who was trying to overthrow the UFP government? Or how'd it end up with such an inaccurate/misleading name?

Did Star Trek: Insubordination sound too boring? Why the deceit? There was *no* insurrection.

Ok, it's kind of a dumb question. But it's bothered me for quite a while. Yeah, I'm pretty weird.

Well, it was the second worst of all the Trek movies, did you really expect much from the title?

~String

Agreed, the title fits the movie's overall quality quite well.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Maybe the original pitch fit the title before it was screwed over by a dozen other writers and production notes?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

This is more proof that Star Trek needs to stay away from depicting internal Federation politics. Star Trek is not about the Federation but about the frontier of the Federation - patrolling the outlying colonizes, defending it from interlopers, exploring beyond its borders.

Star Trek is about Star Trek. The Federation is part of Star Trek. There is no reason why the Federation cannot be explored in the same manner as "the frontier".

The Federation is just a big, black hole at the heart of the story, which we don't need to concern ourselves about, because it doesn't need help, being enlightened, peaceful, with infinite resources. Starfleet's job is to protect this paradise from the big, bad cosmos.

Only if you want one-dimensional, cookie-cutter stories that always end with the proverbial "happy ending" and don't challenge the viewer to think at all.

Star Trek at it's best is not about planet of the week or phaser fights or "exploring", it's about ideas.

They could have done so by bringing the alien parasites back, having them take over the UFP, and forcing Picard to lead an actual insurrection to overthrow the alien-controlled government.

Now that's the right idea, because the threat is external rather than anything caused by the Federation itself.

Yawn...another "alien of the week" threat. Beat the bad guy in 3 acts and time enough left for the quickie quip in the closer...

Another angle is what DS9 did in Homefront/Paradise Lost, to depict the Federation being vulnerable to outside subversion because as nice as it may be, it's not 100% perfect.

While the Changelings were scheming to upset the Federation apple cart, the subversion was entirely from within. Layton was NOT a Changeling. He was an all too human Starfleet admiral.

Which simply underscores the need for Starfleet to keep threats like parasites and changelings at bay.

Again, if you want cookie-cutter stories and a Pollyanna Federation, then by all means.

Those of us who prefer at least some intellectual heft to our entertainment will continue to enjoy the excellence of the stories that showed us REAL people facing REAL challenges to their preconceptions and dealing with genuine moral ambiguities.

Modern Trek was at it's absolute peak of perfection with the Maquis/Section 31/Layton Coup/et al material that explored what happens to the "paradise saints" (to paraphrase Sisko) when the paradise is threatened.

As it turns out, Quark was absolutely right: take away their holosuites and cozy, perfect little insular world and they have the potential to become as aggressive as any Klingon, as conniving as any Romulan. In other words: genuine PEOPLE, not the Stepford Citizens that Gene in his burned out druggie haze tried to turn them into.

 

[bigdaddy]

Well, it was the second worst of all the Trek movies, did you really expect much from the title?

~String

Second worst? I think it's third worst, maybe even fourth.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

"Worst" being a relative term (I've at least enjoyed ALL the Trek films) my list would be ("worst" first):

Final Frontier
Undiscovered Country
JJ Trek
Nemesis
Generations
Insurrection
First Contact
TMP
the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy

 

[InklingStar]

Maybe the original pitch fit the title before it was screwed over by a dozen other writers and production notes?

If I was an omnipotent time-traveler, going back and having them make the movie out of Michael Piller's heart of darkness script is on my list of things to change.

 

[Cepstrum]

You guys are right.

There was a lot more of the movie that didn't make sense besides the title. I still don't get what right 600 Ba'ku had to a planet they occupied a mere 200 years ago, when moving them could save billions. And they weren't a prewarp people. I also don't think moving them would have necessarily harmed them: put them first in line for the metaphasic magical healing stuff.

It'd be different of that was their home planet, they were prewarp, hadn't kicked the Son'a off (just because the Son'a happened to like technology), and there were more than 600 people. Starfleet wasn't interfering with the natural development of a people group. I actually think Picard wasn't clearly in the right. It seems a lot more morally ambiguous than how he portrayed it by comparing it to the massive forced population resettlements during and after WWII.

It wasn't even like Europeans coming to America to displace indigenous peoples. It's more like the Ba'ku were hoarding the resources and persecuted anyone who disagreed with their chosen lifestyle (as they did to the Son'a). Sure, the Son'a weren't good guys, but still....

 

[Guy Gardener]

Any species is a work in process developing naturally or unnaturally into goodness knows what. The Prime Diorective has applied to Postwarp cultures before,and lines from this crappy movie is the only indication that it was in all those other situations that canon was being violated, but prime directive aside the same noninterference policy which stopped Picard comming to the Aid of Gowron during the klingon Civil War would have stopped the federation getting inbetween the Bakuu and the Sonar.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You guys are right.

There was a lot more of the movie that didn't make sense besides the title. I still don't get what right 600 Ba'ku had to a planet they occupied a mere 200 years ago, when moving them could save billions. And they weren't a prewarp people. I also don't think moving them would have necessarily harmed them: put them first in line for the metaphasic magical healing stuff.

They got there first. They settled it. It's their planet. It's that simple.

It'd be different of that was their home planet, they were prewarp, hadn't kicked the Son'a off (just because the Son'a happened to like technology),

They didn't "kick the Son'a off"; the Son'a left on their own.

and there were more than 600 people.

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" That's the point. If you can do it to 6 or 60 or 600 you can do it to 6000, 600000, 6000000...you can do it to anybody.

Some lines are not meant to be crossed. Your way of thinking is the same thing that forced the CDZ colonists to form the Maquis.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Didn't the title have to also do with "Alien:Resurrection" and the two films sounding too much alike or am I off the mark? I seem to remember something to do with this. I agree that the Enterprise crew did act against direct orders from a corrupt Admiral and the title is misleading. Originally when I first heard about the movie I remember thinking that it could be about the Dominion War somehow.

 

[Timo]

Picard et al. were rebelling (as far as they knew) against a specific order from a single superior officer.

Umm, it was a bit more than that. Picard only started rebelling after he had confronted Dougherty on the issue of the cloaked transport he had found. In that confrontation, Dougherty made it clear that the UFP government was supporting the operation involving that transport, and that Picard would be obligated by his Starfleet oath to go along with the moving of the Ba'ku.

Picard knowingly rebelled against the UFP government and the legal orders that government had issued him. He didn't "insurrect" in the sense of directly trying to topple that government, but he certainly defied that government. There was no way he could pretend that Dougherty's actions or orders to him would have been illegal.

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" That's the point. If you can do it to 6 or 60 or 600 you can do it to 6000, 600000, 6000000...you can do it to anybody.

Which is complete bullshit. If you jaywalk, does that mean you are capable of killing a million people?

A single Ba'ku chanting "Hell, no, I won't go!" on top of his hill of plenty is nothing but a criminal. Three minivan-fulls of them ain't much different. A thousand people defending their lifestyle is politically relevant, though. One simply has to think in terms of numbers whenever one considers social issues: the mere individual cannot, must not be respected if a society is to be held together.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[22 Stars]

i was at Paramount at the time, and there were A LOT of titles floating around for this movie. I remember when Insurrection was chosen, MANY of my coworkers didn't even know what it meant! lol.

 

[Cepstrum]

Picard et al. were rebelling (as far as they knew) against a specific order from a single superior officer.

Umm, it was a bit more than that. Picard only started rebelling after he had confronted Dougherty on the issue of the cloaked transport he had found. In that confrontation, Dougherty made it clear that the UFP government was supporting the operation involving that transport, and that Picard would be obligated by his Starfleet oath to go along with the moving of the Ba'ku.

Picard knowingly rebelled against the UFP government and the legal orders that government had issued him. He didn't "insurrect" in the sense of directly trying to topple that government, but he certainly defied that government. There was no way he could pretend that Dougherty's actions or orders to him would have been illegal.

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" That's the point. If you can do it to 6 or 60 or 600 you can do it to 6000, 600000, 6000000...you can do it to anybody.

Which is complete bullshit. If you jaywalk, does that mean you are capable of killing a million people?

A single Ba'ku chanting "Hell, no, I won't go!" on top of his hill of plenty is nothing but a criminal. Three minivan-fulls of them ain't much different. A thousand people defending their lifestyle is politically relevant, though. One simply has to think in terms of numbers whenever one considers social issues: the mere individual cannot, must not be respected if a society is to be held together.

Timo Saloniemi

Timo: I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your position. Are you agreeing with me or Darkwing Duck?

I think another important factor to consider is that it was a UFP planet that the advanced Ba'ku occupied a mere *200* years ago. It's not the same as forcibly removing a people group from their ancestral homeland. They just took it over, enjoyed the immortality, and wanted no one else to benefit. They were even the *same* people; it's not as though they can claim their ancestors built the place (as the Maquis colonists did).

And about rebelling against the UFP: I don't think the UFP government had a complete picture of what was happening. If they had, they obviously would've sided with Picard, for after his actions he was commended, not condemned. I think Picard thought that had the UFP *knew* what was really going on, they'd have stopped it. That's why he sent Riker to inform the government and Starfleet about everything. In Picard's mind, he was merely disobeying an aberrant admiral or admirals.



But I still think Picard, despite his disobedience, was not rebelling against the UFP in any way except against this one issue. He had no intention of even causing unrest, except perhaps to expose Dougherty & Co.'s murky ethics.


But Darkwing Duck: I respect and understand your valid and differring view. I have had disagreements with others about this before, and I don't wish to start an argument (except about the name). I apologize for making an issue about it. Sometimes I'm just plain moronic and thoughtless.


But I still maintain there was no insurrection or even an anti-UFP rebellion!